DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments/arguments filed 5/18/26. The arguments set forth are addressed herein below. Claims 1-6 and 10-15 are pending, Claims 7-9 are canceled, and Claim 15 is newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "receiving…. an updated control setting: that various over a time period" in lines 5-7; however, the specification fails to discloses a control setting that varies overtime as claimed.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "receiving…. an updated control setting: that various over a time period" in lines 7-9; however, the specification fails to discloses a control setting that varies overtime as claimed.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "receiving…. an updated control setting: that various over a time period" in lines 6-8; however, the specification fails to discloses a control setting that varies overtime as claimed.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 10-12, and 15 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 from which they depend; therefore, are rejected herein for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites “updating, during execution of the first software and after the time period has elapsed, the value of the updated control setting back to the initial control setting; and generating audio content or video content for provision to a user based on the initial control setting”; however, the specification lacks any disclosure in reference to reverting back to an initial control setting.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the information processing" in line 5; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant intended for the limitation to be “the information processing system”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the information processing" in line 7; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant intended for the limitation to be “the information processing system”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the information processing" in line 6; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant intended for the limitation to be “the information processing system”.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 10-12, and 15 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 from which they depend; therefore, are rejected herein for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is indefinite due to dependency upon itself. It appears, based on the preamble of Claim 15 (“The information processing method.. further”), that the claim is dependent upon Claim 1 (An information processing method) and will be treated as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2012/0302340) in view of Yeh (US 2022/0395747).
Claims 1 and 13-14: Takemoto discloses an information processing system, the information processing system comprising circuitry (including non-transitory machine-readable storage medium which stores computer software which, when executed by a computer (Figs. 1-5, ¶ 6, 8, 144, Claim 1), cause the computer to perform an information processing method) configured for performing the information processing method comprising: executing first software on an information processing system based on an initial control setting (Figs. 1-2, ¶ 52-55, 115-117, 122-123, emphasis on s10 of Fig. 13 and ¶ 123), wherein the first software is a video game (¶ 45-47, 53, 60); receiving, by the information processing system over a network connection (¶ 62), an updated control setting (Figs. 1, 3-5, ¶ 51, 65, 99-112, 115-117, 122-143): that varies over a time period (the time period corresponding to the period of playing the game, Figs. 13-14, ¶ 122-143, the user can continuously or repetitively update the control setting during the game session of while playing the game); that is generated by a portable electronic device (6) in response to user input; updating, during execution of the first software and during the time period, the value of the initial control setting based un the updated control setting (Figs. 1, 3-5, 13-14, ¶ 51, 65, 99-112, 115-117, 122-143); and generating audio content or video content for provision to a user in dependence upon the execution of the first software and the value of the updated control setting (Figs. 7-9, 13-14, see above, ¶ 46, 55-56, 113, 122-143).
Takemoto teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the updated control setting comprises one or more of a brightness of video content, a color of video content, a contrast of video content, a resolution of video content, graphics settings of the video game, a volume of audio content, a frequency of audio content, a speed of audio content, and a type of audio content such that the generated audio or video content reflects the updated control setting. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148) and that generated content can include video and/or audio content of the video game (¶ 46, 55-56, 113). Furthermore, an analogous art of Yeh teaches an information processing system and/or method thereof wherein the generated content includes video content and wherein the control setting includes a setting to control one of more of: a brightness of the video content, a colour of the video content, a contrast of the video content, and/or a resolution of the video content (Fig. 1, ¶ 3, 16-17, 59, emphasis on ¶ 59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control setting of Takemoto such that the control setting pertains to a setting to control at least brightness of generated video content as taught by Yeh to provide a means of adjusting display settings during a game (Yeh - ¶ 59). Such a modification providing an immersive gaming experience (Yeh - ¶ 3).
Claim 3: Takemoto teaches wherein the method comprises controlling one or more gameplay elements of the video game in dependence upon a second input instruction (¶ 44, 48-50, 107-110).
Claim 4: Takemoto teaches wherein the second input instruction is received via a controller (Fig. 1 elements 7a-b), a camera, or a microphone communicatively coupled with the information processing system (¶ 44, 48-50, 107-110).
Claim 6: Takemoto in view of Yeh teaches wherein the updated control setting is used to control an accessibility function of the audio content or video content (Takemoto - ¶ 102-112, Yeh – Fig. 1, ¶ 3, 16-17, 59).
Claim 11: Takemoto in view of Yeah teaches wherein the updated control setting defines a value to replace the initial control setting, or wherein the updated control setting devices a value to modify the initial control setting (Takemoto - ¶ 51-55, 65, 99-112, 115-117, 122-123, emphasis on ¶ 111, Yeh - Fig. 1, ¶ 3, 16-17, 59).
Claim 12: Takemoto teaches wherein the method comprises updating the value of the initial control setting (¶ 9, 26, 111, 113).
Claim 15: Takemoto teaches updating, during execution of the first software and after the time period has elapsed, the value of the updated control setting back to the initial control setting; and generating audio content or video content (see above) for provision to a user based on the initial control setting (see above, Figs. 13-14, ¶ 123-140, emphasis on Figs. 13-14 in relation to s20-s24, wherein at s24 if the game is not over the process branches back to s11 such that the process of changing an updated control setting can be achieved. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a user can change an updated control setting back to the initial control setting if desired).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2012/0302340) in view of Yeh (US 2022/0395747), and in further view of Ge (US 2019/0060758).
Claim 2: Takemoto in view of Yeh teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the updated control setting is received via an Application Programming Interface, API. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148) and that the updated control settings are provided via captured game inputs (see above in regards to user input). Furthermore, an analogous art of Ge teaches client devices or portable electronic devices that include software comprising Application Programing Interface (API) to capture game inputs via a graphical user interface from a user (¶ 40, 78, 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and/or medium, particularly in regards to how gaming inputs including updated control settings are received of Takemoto in view of Yeh with the API means of Ge because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of capturing gaming inputs via a graphical user interface in which at least Takemoto is intended (see above, ¶ 100-113, Fig. 7). Such a modification enhances the immersive experience of the user (Ge - ¶ 40, 78, 104).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2012/0302340) in view of Yeh (US 2022/0395747), and in further view of Gaiba (US 2012/0238365).
Claim 5: Takemoto in view of Yeh teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the updated control setting is a control setting used by the information processing system when executing a plurality of types of first software. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148). Furthermore, an analogous art of Gaiba teaches an information processing system and/or method thereof wherein the updated control setting is a control setting used by the information processing system when executing a plurality of types of first software (¶ 39-42, 49 (plurality of different types of loadable video games), ¶ 51, 53-54 (settings of the games include number of players, difficulty, viewpoint, etc, wherein a user can pick the game and the settings are associated with each game), ¶ 67, Figs. 3, 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the updated control setting of Takemoto in view of Yeh such that the updated control setting is a control setting used by the information processing system when executing a plurality of types of first software as taught by Gaiba to provide a new way of interfacing with video games through immersivity (Gaiba- ¶ 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2012/0302340) in view of Yeh (US 2022/0395747), and in further view of Wiggemans (US 2017/0206054).
Claim 10: Takemoto in view of Yeh teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the portable electronic device is configured to execute software that includes profiles, and wherein the updated control setting is received together with one or more further control settings in dependence upon a profile selected by the user. Takemoto at least teaches that various modifications and variations can be devised (¶ 148), that generated content can include video and/or audio content of the video game (¶ 46, 55-56, 113), and updating the value of a plurality of control settings via software (¶ 90) executed on the portable electronic device (see above, control setting values such as the number of game participants and the difficulty level, (¶ 9, 26, 51-55, 65, 99-113, 115-117, 122-143). Furthermore, an analogous art of Wiggemans teaches an information processing system and/or method thereof an electronic device that executes software that includes profiles, and wherein the updated control setting is received together with one or more further control settings in dependence upon a profile selected by the user (¶ 7-8, 23-26, 35, 37, 43, 54, emphasis on ¶ 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the updating during execution of software on the portable electronic device of the value of a plurality of control settings via execution of software on the portable electronic device of Takemoto in view of Yeh such that the update is dependent upon a profile from a number of stored profiles selected by the user as taught by Wiggemans because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of alter control setting in which at least Takemoto is intended (see above). Such a modification a modification allows a user to adjust control settings without interrupting game play (Wiggemans - ¶ 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly, the examiner relies upon the addition of Takemoto in view Yeh (US 2022/0395747) to teach the claimed amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights